DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as directed a hearing to aid in the determination of that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the claims on the ground that the defendant was not negligent is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
The Court of Claims properly denied those branches of the defendant's cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the claims on the ground that they were barred by the doctrines of governmental immunity and judicial immunity. The actions of the employees of the County Court and Department of Correction which resulted in the premature release of the assailant were ministerial in nature and not entitled to governmental immunity (see Lauer v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 95, 99). Furthermore, the actions of the nonjudicial County Court employees which resulted in the erroneous transmittal of the Judge's sentencing determination regarding the assailant to the Department of Correction were not an integral part of the judicial decision-making process entitled to judicial immunity (see Mosher-Simons v. County of Allegany, 99 N.Y.2d 214; Weiner v. State of New York, 273 A.D.2d 95).
The appeal from so much of the order as directed a hearing to aid in the determination of that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the claims on the ground that it was not negligent is not appealable as of right, and since leave to appeal has not been granted, it must be dismissed (see Rosen v. Swarzman, 296 A.D.2d 392) . Any party aggrieved by an order deciding that branch of the cross motion may take an appeal from that order (id.).
SANTUCCI, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, SMITH and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.